If it did, you may have a "credable" point. Physical evidence and known forensics, support George.

"When you are in jail, and you know your phone calls are monitored, and you use code like What should we do with the $100 ($100 = $100,000 - thats one tough code, eh?)..."

The transcriptions show they knew they were being recorded. Using an elementary "code" and KNOWING you're being recorded just doesn't track with trying to hide anything. I'd be looking for other possible explanations, like George not wanting some to overheard by some of the other jail guests.

All that aside. O'Mara should have disclosed this information. I find it VERY unlikely the subject wasn't explored thoroughly before the bail hearing.

I could say the most reasonable supposition from the evidence, including Zimmermans version, the medical reports, and eye witness testimony, is that Martin attacked Zimmerman. And its not so easy as you think to brush it off as Zimmerman being a bad fighter. He would have had to start the fight and not only lose but also not land a single blow, besides the one from his gun. That is incredible.

Tublecane FTW!

wtc411 for the FAIL!

225
posted on 06/12/2012 10:59:33 AM PDT
by kiryandil
(turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))

If you read what I wrote, then obviously that isnt at all what Im saying, its what you are saying. I don't mind if you place blame where it doesn't rest. I will respond as I see fit. If you don't like it, then don't place blame where it doesn't belong.

When you say someone seems to be saying something, that means you hear what you want, not what was said. Nope, but nice try. If you place blame where it doesn't belong, it opens the door to all the reasons why you're wrong. I touched on some of them. You don't like it. Tough. If you don't like getting called on saying something stupid, then don't say something stupid.

I am saying that if he had stayed in his car as the dispatcher directed, then none of this would have happened.Oh really? Is that what you meant? LMAO Yes, that's exactly what you meant. And that is as stupid a thing to say as I have read here in a long time.

If someone is suspicious, you're going to keep him in your sight until he is off the property. The police have no authority to tell you you can't get out of your car from a remote location. If they are on scene and can intervene, a person should defer to them.

This is like an officer telling you you don't have a right to own a gun. "We'll take care of it. Just call us." Ten minutes later when the police cruiser pulls up, you're alread dead.

Lets take the very worst case scenario. I don't think this is what happened by the way. All accounts state that Zimmerman was near his own car, but lets go down the road you seem so anxious to.

Lets say Zimmerman did confront Travon. All Travon had to do was explain what he was doing, perhaps tell Zimmerman where he lived, explain that his dad lived right over there, and it would all have been handled without any problem. Travon obviously became furious and attacked Zimmerman. Where's the outrage directed at Travon for his actions?

The answer in your mind is to always let a possible perp go on down the road. Who cares if they continue to rob units in the complex? At least nobody will get killed? Of course that's until the perp goes into the wrong unit that is occupied, and is confronted. And then a person that wasn't charged with helping out with security, isn't wide awake, and is in a very vulnerable position, is then compromised and very likely to be killed to cover up the crime.

Zimmerman did his community a service, and you're miles off base.

If Travon hadn't become furious, none of this would have happened. Zimmerman had a right to confront if he so desired. If you don't like it, too bad. If the police don't like it, too bad. If the judge doesn't like it, too bad. They will never convict this guy. Deal with it.

Incredible; that everything he says regarding Zimmerman; implies a guilty action on his behalf. This Judge has personally, made the effort to destroy any integrity that Zimmerman has; by saying that he LIED about his funds, et al and hence his recall to jail.

Yes, this judge has incredibly prejudiced this case. In addition to what you're talking about the judge brought up a past legal issue which is irrelevant to this case.

...he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against him" for domestic violence.

That incident was dropped because the cop he supposedly assaulted was an unproffesional asshat who exceeded his authority, assaulted a friend of Zimmerman's, and Zimmerman had no idea he was a cop.

Well, for starter; when you tell the judge at the Bail Hearing that you do not have any savings, you have no relatives that you can borrow money from, and tell him that you do not have access to any funds.

George didn't testify at the bail hearing except to apologize to the Martins. His wife did. So how is George responsible for whatever his wife said? And she actually offered to get the brother-in-law on the phone to confirm the PayPal account total, but no one was interested at the time.

What do you think the dispatcher was trying to convey to Zimmerman with that phrase?

Seriously? The dispatcher was following CYA training that's likely in its manuals for dealing with Neighborhood Watch. With that comment the dispatcher was making certain that the City of Sanford was separating itself from liability if Zimmerman were injured while following the suspect.

Do you think Sanford wanted to be responsible for Zimmerman's acts and injuries had it directed Zimmerman?

It doesn't mean the dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to quit following the suspect . . . only that the dispatcher didn't want to direct Zimmerman to do so.

234
posted on 06/12/2012 11:03:48 AM PDT
by Scoutmaster
(You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)

Why yes he did. Zimmerman stopped chasing the “kid” and the “kid” was safely away from Zimmerman. The dispatcher “suggested” he stop following the “kid” which Zimmerman did. As Zimmerman was returning to his car the “kid” attacked him.

Understand, when you’re following someone, that is completely legal. You can follow people if they are acting suspicious. It’s lawful to do so.

If you follow someone and attack them like the “kid” did, then you are committing assault. That is illegal. You can not attack someone just because they were following you.

The “kid” would still be alive if he had returned to the house his daddy’s girl friend owned after Trey lost Z. But Trey couldn’t allow anyone to disrespect him so he went all gansta on Z and it proved to be the biggest mistake of his life.

Are you just not getting this on purpose or something? Because all of your posts have been answered and yet you keep saying the same crap as if it is the most important thing. Are you saying that it is OK to attack someone who was behind you and now is walking the other way just because you feel they didn’t show you enough respect?

I believe you’re proving all of the posters on here are correct when they call into question your intelligence. You seem to lack any.

240
posted on 06/12/2012 11:07:57 AM PDT
by History Repeats
(If Obama had a son, he'd have his picture hanging on the wall of the Post office wanted board.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.